A Yale School of Medicine researcher, Dr. Fred Volkmar, recently used the APA’s new criteria for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders version five (DSM V) to find that only 45% of individuals who have an autism diagnosis today would retain that diagnosis. The New York Times reported extensively on this development last week.

Since diagnoses determine eligibility for services, this constricted definition would likely withhold remedial services for more than half of all individuals diagnosed with autism today. This could be a disaster for both the autism community and the wider public.

EBCALA issued a press release with other autism and environmental groups to warn of the serious risks of the proposed changes. The coalition is deeply concerned about the possible cut-off of services and about the future of scientific research. Could this redefinition jeopardize years of research and millions of dollars already invested? Has the APA fully considered all the ramifications of the proposed changes? SafeMinds Executive Director, Eric Uram, stated in the press release, “Toxic exposures to the general population change over time and having good consistent epidemiology allows researchers to judge the likelihood of a toxin being involved in autism.”

EBCALA can see no solid foundation for these proposed changes. Dr. Fred Volkmar stated in the New York Times, “The changes would narrow the diagnosis so much that it could effectively end the autism surge… We would nip it in the bud.” Ending the autism epidemic in name only is surely an unworthy goal for the APA or anyone else.

Please contact the APA to express your concern about how these changes might affect those living with autism at

Ask the APA what impact it expects the redefinition to have on health insurance coverage, state services, school district services, and epidemiological research. Ask the APA to explain its rationale for these changes. Tell them your views.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Michael Polidori,
Thank you for bringing my attention to this as my daughter suffered her regression in her second year of life. So if there is no such thing as autism as a result of regression under the DSM-V, then my daughter needs a new official diagnosis. Under another post here at AoA I recently commented that my daughter should have received a diagnosis of regressive encephalopathy instead of autism; autism being the politically expedient diagnosis providing cover for vaccine damage. A regressive encephalopathy would have required investigation and an environmental cause explanation that is far removed from the prenatal etiology with which they keep trying to define autism. Removing regression from any definition under autism creates a need for new diagnoses for many, not to mention bringing the consideration of vaccines back in the picture.

The most important & insidious change to DSM-V autism diagnostic criteria

I reposted this comment because the important link to the February 2008 DSM-V conference did not work. The link was wrong as I posted it (added parentheses) & has been changed/updated on the APA website.

Original comment follows (with corrected/updated link) -

More important that any narrowing of the definiton of autism is the attempt to eliminate regression from autism diagnosis.

This small deletion of single word eliminates the possibility that autism can be triggered after birth and supports the idea that autism is present before children are born.

The fourth panel of that conference was devoted to regression -
"Clinically it [regression] is commonly seen in Rett Syndrome but not included in the criteria, and is not even mentioned in Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder, or PDD-NOS, although it is known to occur fairly frequently."

In the 4th panel report regression is mentioned 24 times and the phrase "regressive autism" is also used - "In regressive autism, the skills are lost in the second year of life, while in “early onset” autism, skills are lost in the first year of life"

2 of 3 breakout groups were dealing with the issue of regression.

Yet in the final draft of the DSM-V "regression" is not mentioned once regarding autism, neither is "regressive autism".

If you deny regression as a symptom of autism then you exclude the possibility of a trigger, like vaccines.

IMO autism can be treated by homeopathy, naturopathy, acupuncture and hypnotherapy. There is no need to submit any child to the ravages of drug therapy. Unfortunately - not everyone can afford to gain the benefit of natural treatments because of cost factors. If the Governments of the world would only recognise there is much that is advantageous in natural herbs and ensuing treatments - we would all be much healthier and happier.

This is a UK report on these issues:-http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099078/Shyness-child-depression-bereavement-classed-mental-illness.html
From above:-
"Peter Kinderman, head of the Institute of Psychology, University of Liverpool, said: ‘It will exacerbate problems that result from trying to fit a medical, diagnostic, system to problems that just don’t fit nicely into those boxes.
‘It will pathologise a range of problems which should never be thought of as mental illnesses. Many who are shy, bereaved, eccentric, or have unconventional romantic lives will suddenly find themselves labelled as “mentally ill”.
‘This isn’t valid, isn’t true, isn’t humane."

The fourth panel of that conference was devoted to regression -
"Clinically it [regression] is commonly seen in Rett Syndrome but not included in the criteria, and is not even mentioned in Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder, or PDD-NOS, although it is known to occur fairly frequently."

In the 4th panel report regression is mentioned 24 times and the phrase "regressive autism" is also used - "In regressive autism, the skills are lost in the second year of life, while in “early onset” autism, skills are lost in the first year of life"

2 of 3 breakout groups were dealing with the issue of regression.

Yet in the final draft of the DSM-V "regression" is not mentioned once regarding autism, neither is "regressive autism".

If you deny regression as a symptom of autism then you exclude the possibility of a trigger, like vaccines.

Toxins are involved in autism.We do not need researchers to judge that.All you have to do is send some fresh hair samples out for hair analysis to find out about the aluminum/mercury/arsenic/nickel/lead/uranium levels in your children's hair.These are only the heavy metals, contaminants,detergents and adjuvants,etc.are not even mentioned yet.It is time to focus on the children's needs and stop manipulating the data/diagnosis to cut cost and eliminate services.

Changing a label won't "nip it in the bud"!! Aspies will ALWAYS be autistic even if the DSM fools try to call it something else. The need for services, ESPECIALLY for higher functioning autistics WILL continue regardless of semantics, and these innocent people should NOT be cut off from services! LEAVE THE DIAGNOSIS ALONE.

They are manipulating the autism tsunami numbers.They want cut cost and reduce the services to the children in need. There is NOT enough money to cover everyone and now parents will be on their own to deal with a lifetime of struggle. They will find some reasons to priscribe,they (pHARMA) want everyone on their meds.Yes,DSM-5 is a major stinker.

If we continue to act as if symptoms are normal, than I am guessing we will soon have regular education classes of special needs kids. (Having some symptoms is now becoming the new normal.) Diagnosed or not, they still struggle in regular education -- many not able to do them. Mine could not do regular education classes until intense recovery efforts of strict diets, lots of nutrients, and basically rebuilding their immune systems. I am so grateful that I am old enough to remember the days before all these symptoms. I would be so clueless if I had to rely on choosing who to believe. But I was there in real time, and saw all this unfold, so I know what's really going on.

I think the DSM-5 is definitely being manipulated for money. Without someone with an Aspergers Diagnosis, you can now diagnose them with OCD or social anxiety, which can then lead to medications being prescribed. Aspergers alone cannot lead to a prescription treatment plan, but OCD or social anxiety labels can.

They are lowering the standards for diagnosing ADHD, OCD, bi-polar and other medication-oriented disorders. And they are creating neurosis out of common everyday ways that we handle stress in order to produce a medication-oriented solution. Aspergers and autism labels are not enough for them to prescribe.

On the flip side, the loss of diagnosis can be windfall for school districts willing to cut off services to students because they no longer meet the diagnostic criteria for services. . .thus increasing the student's anxiety and potential need for medication.

It isn't hard to see where this is heading--someone's pocket is about to be lined.

It's interesting to see the general APA community aware that the DSM-5 is a stinker.

So basically the DSM is being manipulated by money. There's too much Autism and we can't pay for it. That's science?

Is it fair to surmise that a stubbed toe receives more attention than a stubbed central nervous system?

Yet observe the thinking going on in the video. You immediately recognize children with behavior problems are under siege by the Autism Lite crowd.

The Autism Lite people seem to have the least affected children, but have the least trouble ignoring the fact that the most severe cases of Autism remain largely neglected due to the fact that the medical profession has a reverse priority of triage...least severe first.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease. That means severely affected children, those kids with behavioral issues get the shaft.

We don't need a DSM-V change. We need a heart-felt priority reversal by the entire Autism machine where the most severely affected ASD children are put first.